Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T17:59:30.257Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implications of polymorphism in Thysanoptera

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

T. N. Ananthakrishnan
T. N. Ananthakrishnan
Affiliation:
Entomology Research Institute, Loyola College, Madras 34, India
Get access

Abstract

Functional diversities associated with structural polymorphism involving oedymery and gynaecoidy among males and major and minor forms in females, with or without alary polymorphs appear typical of many mycophagous Tubulifera. Notable is the occurrence of reproductive polymorphism resulting in oviparity, ovoviviparity, and viviparity among individuals of the same species reflecting both gross as well as histological profiles.

While alary polymorphism tends to result in ovarian diversities in some species, the combination of this feature with gynaecoidy and oedymery among Tubulifera results in a variety of mating combinations and variations in egg output. Information presented pertains to the mating patterns in mycophagous and sporophagous species in relation to the degree of polymorphism and reproductive efficiency in terms of oviposition rates. The considerably higher longevity of the oedymerous males as compared to gynaecoids adds further to the reproductive efficiency of the oedymeres. Size assortive mating is very evident, with females tending to reject males smaller than them, and with males competing for larger females in this intrasexual rivalry.

Résumé

Diversités functionelles associés avec le polymorphisme structurelle (oedymerisme et gynaecoidisme avec les mâles, “major” at “minor” femelles, et “alary” polymorphisme) paraîssent typique de beaucoup des mycophagous tubuliférès. Le polymorphisme reproducteur comprennet oviparité, ovo-viviparité, et viviparité dans les individuels de le même espèce qu'indique plus des variations dans les profiles externe et interne. Pendant l'alary polymorphisme resuite dans les diversités ovariennes avec quelques espèces, le combination de cette feature avec gynaecoidisme et oedymerisme dans les tubuliférès offert une diversité de combinations s'accouplés, et aussi les variations dans la ponte d'oeufs.

L'information presente ici appertient a les patternes d'accoupler dans les espèces “mycophagous” et “sporophagous” avec la relation à le degré de polymorphisme et l'efficacité reproducteur calculé par les proportions d'ovipositions. Le longevité est plus elevé dans les mâles “oedymerous” vers les “gynaecoi-dous”, qu'indique une meilleur efficacie reproducteur. Le facteur de dimension est important parce que les femelles rejetent les mâles qui sont plus petits, et les mâles rivalisent pour les femelles qui sont plus de grosses.

Keywords

PolymorphismoedymerygynaecoidyoviparityovoviviparityviviparityPolymorphisme oedymeriegynaecoidieoviparitéovoviviparitéviviparité
Type
Symposium II: Biotypes, Polymorphism and Co-evolution in Tropical Insects
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 8 , Issue 4-5-6: Recent Advances in Research on Tropical Entomology , December 1987 , pp. 435 - 439
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ananthakrishnan, T. N. (1960) A remarkable instance of sexual dimorphism in a new species of Rhopalandrothrips nilgiricus (Thysanoptera: Terebrantia). Pan-pacif. Ent. 36, 37–40.Google Scholar
Ananthakrishnan, T. N. (1961) Allometry and speciation In Ecacanthothrips Bagnall. Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 74, 275–280.Google Scholar
Ananthakrishnan, T. N. (1967) Structural diversity and variation range in thrips population. Bull. nat. Inst. Sci. India 34, 371–374.Google Scholar
Ananthakrishnan, T. N. (1968) Patterns of structural diversity in males of some Phlaeophilous Tubulifera (Thysanoptera). Ann. Soc. ent. Fr. (N.S.) 4, 413–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ananthakrishnan, T. N. (1969) Indian Thysanoptera. C.S.I.R. Zool. Monogr. No. 1, 171 pp.Google Scholar
Ananthakrishnan, T. N. (1970) Trends in intraspecific sex limited variation in some mycophagous Tubulifera (Thysanoptera). J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 67, 481–501.Google Scholar
Ananthakrishnan, T. N. (1973) Mycophagous Tubulifera of India. Occl. Publ. No. 2, Ent. Res. Unit. Loyola College, Madras.Google Scholar
Ananthakrishnan, T. N. (1979) Biosystematics of Thysanoptera. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 24, 159–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ananthakrishnan, T. N. (1984) Bioecology of Thrips. Indira Publishing House, Michigan, U.S.A.Google Scholar
Ananthakrishnan, T. N. and Sen, S. (1980) Taxonomy of Indian Thysanoptera. Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta.Google Scholar
Bournier, A. (1957) Un deuxieme cas d'ovoviviparite chez les thysanopteres. C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris. 244, 506–508.Google Scholar
Bournier, A. (1961) Remarques au sujet du brachypterisme chez certaines especes de thysanopteres. Bull. Soc. ent. Fr. 66, 188–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bournier, A. (1962) L'appareil general femalle de Caudothrips buffai Karnet et sa Pumpa Spermatique. Ann. Soc. ent. Fr. (NS) 67, 203–207.Google Scholar
Bournier, A. (1966) L'Embryogene'se de Caudothrips buffai Karny (Thysanoptera: Tubulifera). Ann. Soc. ent. Fr. (NS) 2, 415–435.Google Scholar
Gadgil, M. (1972) Male dimorphism as a consequence of sexual selection. Am. Nat. 106, 574–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, W. D. (1967) Extraordinary sex ratios. Science 156, 477–488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hood, J. D. (1915) An interesting case of antennal antigeny in Thysanoptera. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 17, 128–132.Google Scholar
Hood, J. D. (1939) The cause and significance of macropterism and brachyterism in certain Thysanoptera, with descriptions of a new Mexican. Esc. Nac. de Sien. Biol. 1, 495–505.Google Scholar
Hood, J. D. (1955a) A new Hoplothrips (Thysanoptera) from Florida. Fla. Ent. 38, 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, J. D. (1955b) Brazilian Thysanoptera VI. Rev. Brasil. Ent. 4, 51–55.Google Scholar
John, O. (1923) Fakultative viviparat bei Thysanopteran. Ent. Mitt. Zool. Mus. Hamburg. 12, 227–232.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. L. (1982) Sexual selection in Brentid Weevils. Evolution 36, 251–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, T. (1973) Thrips, their biology and economic importance. New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mound, L. A. (1974) The Nesothrips complex of spore-feeding Thysanoptera (Phaleothripidae: Idolothripinae) Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Ent. 31, 109–188.Google Scholar
Mound, L. A. and Palmer, J. M. (1983) The generic and tribal classification of spore-feeding Thysanoptera (Phlaeothri-pidae: Idolothripinae). Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Ent. 46, 1–174.Google Scholar
Priesner, H. (1960) A monograph of the Thysanoptera of the Egyptian deserts. Publ. Inst. Desert. 13, 55–117.Google Scholar
Roth, L. M. (1968) Ovarioles of Blattaria. Ann. Ent. Soc. Am. 61, 132–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornhill, R. (1979) Male and female sexual selection and the evolution of mating strategies in insects. In Sexual Selection and Reproductive competition. (Edited by Blum, M. S. and Blum, N. A.), Academic Press, New York. pp. 81–121.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man. (Edited by Cambell, B.). Aldine, Chicago, 1871–1971.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1966) Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.Google Scholar